in light of the second amendment's peculiarly close relationship with technology, it would make even less sense to be bound solely by history. in his prepared statement, mr. cooper quoted from, i think it was chicago vs. mcdonald, where the court said that the second amendment is like the other amendments. it's suggest to a consideration of competing constitutional claims, like claims to life, liberty, security, and here's the language. it's not to be singled out for special treatment. what i think mr. cooper is doing is the very thing that the supreme court said is not to be done. elevating the second amendment above all of the other values. of course the court doesn't think that the second amendment should be subject to re-evaluation and re-jiggering and rebalancing because we live in the 21st century. but he as all of the examples that you, i think, carefully enumerated, is clearly open to the idea that a whole range of regulations designed not to strip people of their right of self-defense, but to balance that right to accommodate that right to the severe dangers that we have see